Answer:
True
Explanation:
Coke tried to diversify into the bottling industry by acquiring their bottlers and in the process creating a vertically integrated business. However, 5 years later, they did find out how difficult it was and it led to a failed diversification effort when sold off their bottling operations. This was majorly due to the fact that the bottling business required too much capital investment and time. Capital investment and time that an already large enterprise like coca cola couldn't afford at that period. The initial aim was to have control over the whole production process, but soon after the diversification failed, they went back to producing just the concentrates.
When milk has an absolute advantage in the production of two goods over Tommy, Milk IS MORE PRODUCTIVE IN PRODUCING BOTH GOODS THAN TOMMY.
A country or an individual is said to have absolute advantage in producing a good if the person can produce the good more efficiently economic wise.
A town might decide to issue bonds to B) to build new roads or bridges. A town will achieve a specified amount of money by issuing the bond and there must be an obvious source for returning the bond value until its maturity date. Therefore, building projects or other projects related to the town's infrastructure would be the most appropriate reason for a town to issue bonds.
<span>Fair value is defined as, a rational and unbiased estimate of the potential market price of a good, service, or asset. It takes into account such objective factors as: acquisition/production/distribution costs, replacement costs, or costs of close substitutes.
Since this is an opinion question, either answering yes or no is correct, but you have to say why.
If I understand the question correctly, and the question isn't missing any parts, I would assume it's asking if you should put value on contracts as a document and other financial instruments.
I was going to say no, but because contracts can be transferred or used as currency, I would say yes.
If you say yes I would argue that giving a fair value of the contracts would make them more legal and have more bearing in a place of business. That it would prevent the fluctuation of value on that contract based on other factors like profit/loss and whether or not you transferred, changed, etc. the contract. I would argue that to protect that contract and other financial instruments, and the holders stake in it, you should create a fair value for it.
If you say no, I would argue that the contract can already be treated as a form of currency, and because of that it should not have a fair value placed on it. I would also argue that because contracts often times state the value of that contract within itself, that it should not have a fair value. And finally, I would argue that because with time, the value of items change, you should not place a fair value on a document that can be changed and can lose or gain value with time based on the purposed information in the contract.
</span>
